Senior Postmaster Vs. Sanjay Kumar Gupta

Senior Postmaster vs Sanjay Kumar Gupta

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Nov 08, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1114136

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1114136
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge: A.P. Chowdhri, President; the Honourable Ms. Justice S. Brar Member &Amp; Desh Bandhu, Member
Decided On: Nov 08, 1995
Case Number: Case No. A-44of 1995
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Comparative Citation: 1996 (3) CPJ 66

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senior Postmaster

Respondent

Sanjay Kumar Gupta

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citation: 1996 (3) cpj 66justice a.p. chowdhri, president: 1. the respondent opened nss account at parliament street, post office, new delhi. he deposited rs. 30,000/- each on 31.3.89 and 30.3.90 respectively. entries to this effect were made in the pass-book. when he presented the pass-book at the time of making the third deposit on 28.3.92 the dealing hand scored out the entry relating to deposit dated 30.3.90. the complainant pleaded for restoring the entry but to no purpose. he approached the district forum. during the pendency of the complaint necessary correction was made in the entry. the district forum, by order dated 19.12.94 held that this was a case of deficiency in service and accordingly saddled the opposite party with costs of rs. 5,000/-. aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. 2.mr. m.r. mehta, public relation inspector, who argued for the appellant, admitted before us that the deposit of rs. 30,000/- dated 30.3.90 was supported by evidence from the bank. he submitted that the dealing hand, however, entertained some doubt about the correctness of the entry on the basis of some pay-in-slip. we are not impressed by the argument. the fact remains that the complainant had to undergo lot of harassment in order to get the entry correctly restored in the pass-book. we, however, are further of the view that the amount of costs/ compensation awarded is somewhat on the high side. we, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and reduce the amount to rs. 2,500/-. accordingly, it is directed that the appellant shall pay rs. 2,500/- to the respondent within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the said amount shall carry interest from the date of default till payment @ 18% p.a. a copy of this order be communicated to both the parties as well as d.f.-ii. appeal partly allowed.

Full Judgment

Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President:

1. The respondent opened NSS account at Parliament Street, Post Office, New Delhi. He deposited Rs. 30,000/- each on 31.3.89 and 30.3.90 respectively. Entries to this effect were made in the pass-book. When he presented the pass-book at the time of making the third deposit on 28.3.92 the dealing hand scored out the entry relating to deposit dated 30.3.90. The complainant pleaded for restoring the entry but to no purpose. He approached the District Forum. During the pendency of the complaint necessary correction was made in the entry. The District Forum, by order dated 19.12.94 held that this was a case of deficiency in service and accordingly saddled the opposite party with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

2.Mr. M.R. Mehta, Public Relation Inspector, who argued for the appellant, admitted before us that the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- dated 30.3.90 was supported by evidence from the bank. He submitted that the dealing hand, however, entertained some doubt about the correctness of the entry on the basis of some pay-in-slip. We are not impressed by the argument. The fact remains that the complainant had to undergo lot of harassment in order to get the entry correctly restored in the pass-book. We, however, are further of the view that the amount of costs/ compensation awarded is somewhat on the high side. We, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and reduce the amount to Rs. 2,500/-. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant shall pay Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the said amount shall carry interest from the date of default till payment @ 18% p.a. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties as well as D.F.-II.

Appeal partly allowed.

Same Court & Year Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New ... Same Parties Senior Postmaster vs Sanjay Kumar Gupta Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A.P. Chowdhri, President; the Honourable Ms. Justice S. Brar ...

Land Acquisition